Long-term hospital management in the presence of COVID-19: A practical perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In December 2019, a novel pneumonia caused by a previously unknown pathogen emerged in Wuhan, China. Whereas, thus far, the large majority of people infected by SARS-CoV-2 develop mild inconsequential respiratory symptoms, a minority of mostly fragile, immunecompromised, often aged individuals with chronic medical conditions, develop a severe form of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and shock leading to death. Thanks to the early implementation of a social distancing strategy, some regions have seen only a moderate but significant increase in the number of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although, a significant increase in severe and critical COVID-19 patients was noted, requiring significant investment in dedicated personnel and allocation of specific hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) infrastructure and resources, but the medical systems’ functioning was not completely disrupted. As the development of a readily available vaccine against the new coronavirus is expected to take about 1.5 - 2 years, most hospitals will have to address the problems and challenges of caring for regular patients, some of them high-risk patients for SARS-CoV-2 infection, while caring in parallel for a low to moderate number of COVID-19 infected patients. This report presents an outline for a plan of action of a hospital system to deal with such an eventuality. We review the key changes that must be implemented in hospital management and activity to prevent disruption of key services due to the COVID-19 outbreak and the maintenance of high quality of care to all patients while ensuring the highest standards of staff and patient safety.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".